Professional Documents
Culture Documents
the rise in global temperatures to no more than 2 degrees C from pre-industrial levels, his theme
was that it is now time for the courts to step in, to enforce this as worldwide law.
Although his audience, Sands said, would agree that the scientific evidence for man-made climate
change was 'overwhelming', there were still 'scientifically qualified, knowledgeable and influential
individuals' continuing to deny 'the warming of the atmosphere, the melting of the ice and the
rising of the seas', and that this is all due to our emissions of CO2. The world's courts, led by the
International Court of Justice, said Sands, could play a vital role 'in finally scotching these claims'.
'The most important thing the courts could do,' he said, was to hold a top-level 'finding of fact', to
settle these 'scientific disputes' once and for all: so that it could then be made illegal for any
government, corporation (or presumably individual scientist) ever to question the agreed 'science'
again. Furthermore, he went on, once 'the scientific evidence' thus has the force of binding
international law, it could be used to compel all governments to make 'the emissions reductions that
are needed', including the phasing out of fossil fuels, to halt global warming in its tracks.
On the surface this sounds like what I was just asking for. There should be research and debates until the
indisputable truth is found. However, this hardly sounds like a fair debate. It sounds like Sands is calling for an
international court to prove what he thinks is true, rather than seeking the truth with an open mind and a
consideration for all parties. He's really just calling for a kangaroo court to make his science official, which would
be followed by prosecuting any institution that disagrees. Frankly, that would be incredibly unethical to do, even
if global warming was proven to be true.
What I find interesting about this whole situation, is that I don't remember hearing about anyone calling for
pro-global warming opinions to be made illegal (as a matter of fact, if you can find a single instance of this
happening, post it in the comments.) This type of behavior seems to stem exclusively from the other side of the
aisle, and it doesn't do their argument any favors. If this is how top global warming proponents approach
science and debate, then it's hard to imagine anyone taking their assertions seriously in the future.
Joshua Krause is a reporter, writer and researcher at The Daily Sheeple. He was born and raised in the Bay Area
and is a freelance writer and author. You can follow Joshuas reports at Facebook or on his personal Twitter.
Joshuas website is Strange Danger.
http://www.activistpost.com/2015/10/secretive-un-legal-conference-wants-to-outlaw-climate-changedenial.html